Autonomous security monitoring for distributed infrastructure — post-quantum encrypted, Byzantine fault-tolerant.
v2.1.0 NIST FIPS 203/204 247 reviews · 4.8★Sentinel AI is an autonomous security monitoring agent designed for distributed infrastructure operators. Unlike traditional SIEM tools that require human triage, Sentinel uses Byzantine fault-tolerant consensus to validate threat signals across 7 geographically distributed sensor nodes before issuing an alert.
The core innovation is the threat validation pipeline: every security event must be independently confirmed by at least 5 of 7 sensors before it triggers a response. This eliminates false positives caused by single-node anomalies while maintaining sub-500ms detection latency for genuine threats.
Sentinel's telemetry is encrypted end-to-end using ML-KEM-768 (NIST FIPS 203), ensuring that intercepted network traffic reveals nothing about your infrastructure's security posture. Audit logs are signed with ML-DSA-87 (NIST FIPS 204) and anchored on the Lattice blockchain, providing tamper-evident proof of every detection event.
Traditional security tools produce alerts based on single-sensor readings, leading to alert fatigue from false positives. Sentinel's 5-of-7 consensus model means a threat is only flagged when independent sensors agree — eliminating 94% of false positives in our benchmark testing.
All sensor data, alerts, and audit trails use ML-KEM-768 for key encapsulation and AES-256-GCM for data encryption. Your security telemetry remains private even against adversaries with access to quantum computers. Sentinel was among the first security products to achieve NIST ACVTS validation for both ML-KEM-768 and ML-DSA-87.
Sentinel agents authenticate via hardware-bound NFT identities. Each sensor node holds a unique ML-DSA-87 keypair anchored to its physical hardware. Compromising a sensor's credentials requires physical access to the device — network-based credential theft is architecturally prevented.
| Specification | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Consensus protocol | Byzantine fault-tolerant (5-of-7) | Tolerates 2 compromised nodes |
| Detection latency | p50: 180ms, p99: 470ms | End-to-end, consensus included |
| Key encapsulation | ML-KEM-768 (NIST FIPS 203) | ACVTS validated April 2026 |
| Digital signatures | ML-DSA-87 (NIST FIPS 204) | ACVTS validated April 2026 |
| Symmetric encryption | AES-256-GCM | NIST approved |
| Sensor nodes | 7 (minimum), 21 (recommended) | Geographic distribution required |
| False positive rate | <0.3% | At default sensitivity |
| Deployment | Docker, bare metal, Kubernetes | ARM64 and x86-64 |
| Storage | ~2GB/month per node | Compressed, encrypted telemetry |
| Memory | 512MB minimum per sensor | 1GB recommended |
| Feature | Starter $0/mo |
Pro $49/mo |
Enterprise $299/mo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensor nodes | 3 | 7 | Unlimited |
| Consensus threshold | 2-of-3 | 5-of-7 | Custom |
| Alert latency | <2s | <500ms | <200ms |
| Audit chain | 7 days | 1 year | Unlimited |
| PQC encryption | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| ML-DSA-87 signing | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| HIPAA/SOC2 | — | — | ✓ |
| Custom rules | — | 50 | Unlimited |
| API access | Read only | Full | Full + webhooks |
| SLA | — | 99.9% | 99.95% |
| Support | Community | 24/7 dedicated |
Traditional IDS/IPS systems trigger on single-sensor anomalies. Sentinel requires independent confirmation from 5 of 7 geographically distributed sensors before flagging a threat. A false positive would need to simultaneously fool 5 independent sensors — statistically near-impossible. In our 6-month production benchmark, Sentinel logged 0 false positives at the 5-of-7 threshold while maintaining sub-500ms detection latency.
Security telemetry is high-value target data. An adversary with a quantum computer could retroactively decrypt intercepted telemetry streams captured today — a "harvest now, decrypt later" attack. Using ML-KEM-768 (NIST FIPS 203) means your telemetry remains private even against future quantum adversaries. NIST finalized ML-KEM in August 2024. Federal agencies must migrate to PQC by 2030. Sentinel is ahead of that curve.
Sentinel enters a degraded-but-safe mode. With fewer than 5 active sensors, the consensus threshold cannot be met. Sentinel will log a warning, escalate to a backup alert channel, and continue collecting telemetry. It will not issue consensus-validated alerts until 5+ sensors are restored. This prevents both false positives (from operating below threshold) and silent failures (no alerting without notification).
Yes. Sentinel exposes a standard STIX/TAXII feed for SIEM integration and a webhook system for real-time alert forwarding. Pre-built integrations exist for Splunk, Elastic Security, Microsoft Sentinel, and CrowdStrike. The REST API supports custom integrations. Enterprise tier includes dedicated integration support.
CrowdStrike and SentinelOne are excellent endpoint detection tools. Sentinel AI focuses on infrastructure-level threat detection with cryptographic proof of every detection event. The key differences: (1) Byzantine consensus instead of single-agent detection, (2) post-quantum encrypted telemetry, (3) immutable audit chain on the Lattice blockchain, (4) hardware-bound sensor identity (credential theft is physically impossible). Sentinel complements rather than replaces endpoint tools.
We went from 300+ alerts/day with our previous tool to 12 actual threats/day with Sentinel. The 5-of-7 consensus is the real deal — if Sentinel fires, it's real. Our SOC team went from overwhelmed to actually investigating real threats.
— Marcus T., Infrastructure Security Lead, fintech company · March 2026We required PQC validation as part of our federal contractor compliance. Sentinel was the only commercial security monitoring tool that could show us actual NIST ACVTS test results for both ML-KEM-768 and ML-DSA-87. Implementation was straightforward and the audit chain on Lattice gives us non-repudiable evidence for every security event.
— Sarah K., CISO, defense contractor · February 2026The consensus architecture takes time to understand and tune. Documentation is good but assumes familiarity with BFT protocols. Once configured correctly, it's the most reliable detection system I've used in 15 years. The blockchain audit trail is genuinely useful for incident reconstruction. Wish the dashboard was more intuitive.
— DevOps Engineer, cloud infrastructure company · January 2026